Bangalore District Court
Bharathi Nagara Ps vs Jerry Aga Alias Jerry Roland on 6 September, 2025
KABC010029752021
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
: P R E S E N T:
SMT.LATHA,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
SPL.C.C. No.75/2021
COMPLAINANT : State by Bharathinagar
Police Station
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : Jerry Aga @ Jerry Ronald,
S/o. Aga,
Aged about 29 years,
Abia State,
Nigeria.
(By Sri.KSV., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 1.8.2018
2. Date of report of offence: 1.8.2018
3. Arrest of the accused : 2.8.2018
2
4. Date of release of accused on bail: 14.8.2018
5. Period undergone in custody: 12 days in JC thereafter
he is in detention center
6. Date of commencing of
8.3.2022
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 25.6.2025
8. Name of the complainant: Police Inspector, CCB.,
Bangalore Sri.K
Narayana Gowda
9. Offence complained of : U/Sec.21(b) of NDPS Act
& Sec.14 of Foreigners
Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
11. Order of sentence : The accused is
acquitted
::JUDGMENT::
The accused is prosecuted by the Bharathinagar Police, Bangalore on the allegation that he is found in possession of contraband Cocaine which is an offence punishable U/Sec.21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act.
CCH-33 3 Spl.C.C.75/2021
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:-
On 1.8.2018 at about 9.00 am., when the Police Inspector of CCB., Bangalore was in his office had received credible information about the drug trafficking by Nigerian National near St. John's High School Compound footpath, Promenade road, Frazer town, Bangalore. He informed the said information to his superior officer in writing, secured two mahazar witnesses and staff members. Along with them, he went to the spot. In the spot he found the suspected person. By confirming the information received by him, apprehended the suspected person and on his personal search they found 05 grams of cocaine with him.
He seized it with mobile, Suzuki Scooty and cash of Rs.500/- which were used for his business of selling narcotic drug. They seized the same under a mahazar and took the accused along with seized articles, prepared a report and placed before the Station House Officer which is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.125/2018 for the offences punishable U/Sec.21(b) of 4 NDPS Act and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act. The SHO after registered the case followed arrest procedure against the accused, took his voluntary statement and produced him before the Court for further action.
3. The Investigating officer, after completing the investigation filed charge sheet before the Court. The accused was in judicial custody. The learned Predecessor- in-office of this Court, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.21(b) of NDPS Act,1985 and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act. The copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents were furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the accused as provided under Sec.207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since the offences alleged against the accused are cognizable in nature, the predecessor-in- office of this Court heard the learned counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor before charge and framed the Charges against the accused for the offences punishable under section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 & Sec.14 of Foreigners Act on 13.09.2021, read-over and explained to CCH-33 5 Spl.C.C.75/2021 the accused in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, posted the case for recording the evidence on behalf of prosecution.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got 12 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P.12 and got five material objects marked as M.O.1 to 5. After conclusion of evidence of prosecution side, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating statements made against him. However, did not offer defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of P.P., and learned counsel for the accused.
6. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Counsel for the accused and on perusal of the above rulings, the following points that arise for consideration is as follows :-
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution 6 proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 1/08/2018 at about 9.30 am., on the footpath of St. John's Hostel compound, Prominade road, Frazer town, Bengaluru accused was found in illegal possession of 05 grams of cocaine without having any licence or permission to sell the same and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act? Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves that the accused herein has over stayed in India even after expiry of VISA which is an offence punishable U/s.14 of Foreigners Act, 1946? What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per the final order for the following:
CCH-33 7 Spl.C.C.75/2021 ::REASONS::
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2:- The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, has examined CW1 Sri.K Narayana Gowda, PI of CCB as PW1. PW1 in his evidence deposed that on 1.8.2018 at about 9.00 am., he received credible information about drug trafficking by Nigerian National by name Jerry will come near St. Joseph Women's College, Promenade road, Frazer town, Bangalore at about 10.30 to 11.30 am., on a two wheeler Suzuki Access bearing No.KA 53 EK 3383, that he reduced the said information into writing in the information register, that he informed the said information to ACP/CW.11 and obtained permission in writing to conduct raid, secured the mahazar witnesses and issued notice to them, that he secured his staff CWs.3 to 7 and went to the place of incident at about 10.30 am., and mounted surveillance, at about 10.40 am., the suspect come to the spot, on confirmation they apprehended him and enquired him, that he revealed his name and address, that he further disclosed that he is in 8 possession of cocaine and came there to sell the same to customers, that he apprised the accused about his right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or through a Magistrate, that he consented to be searched before gazetted officer, that he called ACP and requested him to come to the spot to conduct personal search of the accused, that the ACP came to the place of incident at 11.30 am., he gave requisition in writing, that the ACP apprised the accused about his right, he consented to be searched by him, that the ACP issued body search memo to the accused, that on search of the accused, in his right side pant pocket there was a plastic cover containing cocaine, that on weighing the same it was 05 grams, that they took 01 gram for sample and packed separately and sealed it with W&N Seal, that they further seized one mobile phone, two wheeler bearing No.KA 53 EK 3383 and cash of Rs.500/- he gave the metal seal to mahazar witness, that he drew a mahazar as per Ex.P5, and that as per the instructions of ACP, he took the accused, seized articles and documents to Bharathinagar CCH-33 9 Spl.C.C.75/2021 police station and gave complaint before the Station House officer od Bharathinagar police station.
9. The prosecution has also examined CW.10 Sri.Venkatesh Prasanna, the ACP as PW.2. PW.2 in his evidence has deposed that on 1.8.2018 at about 9.00 am., CW.1 came to him and informed the information about drug trafficking by Nigerian National by name Jerry Aga, that he will come near St.John's High School, Promenade road, Frazer town, Bangalore at about 10.30 to 11.30 am., and accorded permission in writing, that CW.1 along with mahazar witnesses and hi staff CWs.3 to 7 went to the said place that at about 11.00 am., CW.1 called him over phone and requested him to come to the spot to conduct personal search of the accused, that he went to the place of incident at 11.30 am., CW1 gave requisition to him in writing, that he apprised to the accused about his right, accused consented to have personal search in his presence, that he issued body search memo to the accused and took his answers, that the accused admitted about possession of 10 contraband, that on search of the person of accused, in right side pant pocket there was a plastic cover containing cocaine, that on weighing the same it weighed 05 grams, that they tested the same with DD kit it gave positive response for cocaine, that they took 01 gram for sample and packed it separately and sealed with W&N Seal, that they further seized one mobile phone, a two wheeler bearing No.KA 53 EK 3383 and cash of Rs.500/- that a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P5 and instructed CW.1 to register a complaint at Bharathinagar police station.
10. The prosecution has also examined CW11 Dr.Vani N, Asst., Director, FSL, Bangalore as PW3. PW3 in her evidence has specifically deposed that on 12.9.2018 their office had received two sealed articles in Crime No.125/2018 of Bharathinagar Police Station through PC No.14058, that she received the said articles and subjected the same for chemical analysis, that on chemical analysis she found that the sample responded positive for cocaine.
CCH-33 11 Spl.C.C.75/2021
11. CW.12 Sri Veerendrakumar P, PI has been examined as PW.4. PW.4 in his evidence has deposed that CW.1 produced the accused, seized contraband, a two wheeler, cash of Rs.500/-, panchanama and other documents along with report, that based on the said report a case in Cr.No.125/2018 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act, that he noted the seized articles in PF, recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statements of CWs.2 to 7, that on 2.8.2018 he sent the accused for medical examination and produced before the Court, that on 27.8.2018 he sent the seized articles for inventory through CW.10 and received the inventory report on the same day, that on 12.9.2018 he sent the sample to FSL for chemical analysis and on 20.6.2020 he handed over the records to CW.10 for further investigation.
12. CW.13 Sri Anand Naik C E., PI of Bharathinagar police station is examined as PW.5. PW.5 deposed that 12 during August 2020 he received the records from PW.4, on 11.11.2020 he received the FSL report and after conclusion of investigation filed charge sheet before the Court.
13. CW.6 Sri Vinay, HC 8777 of CCB office has been examined as PW.6. He deposed that on 1.8.2018 he along with CW.1, 2, 3, 5 to 7 went near St. Joseph Women's College, Promenade road, Frazer town, Bangalore on the information that a Nigerian national is selling drugs to the public, that they went to the spot and apprehended the accused, that CW.1 enquired the accused about possession of contraband for which he admitted that he possess contraband, that CW.1 called ACP to the place of incident to conduct personal search of the accused, that the ACP apprised the accused about his right, he consented to be searched his person in the presence of ACP, that the ACP issued body search memo to the accused, that on search of the person of accused, in right side pant pocket there was a plastic cover containing cocaine, that on weighing the same CCH-33 13 Spl.C.C.75/2021 it weighed with 05 grams, they took 01 gram for sample and packed separately and sealed with W&N Seal, that they further seized one mobile phone, a two wheeler bearing No.KA 53 EK 3383 and cash of Rs.500/-, that mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P5.
14. As could be seen from the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution, Ex. P1 is the Station House Diary, Ex.P2 is the request letter to ACP, Ex.P3 is the notice issued to panchas, Ex.P4 is the request letter to ACP to be present at the time of body search of accused, Ex.P5 is the Seizure mahazar, Ex.P6 is the sample seal, Ex.P7 is the complaint, Ex.P8 is the body search notice, Ex.9 is the FSL report, Ex.P10 specimen seal, Ex.P11 is the FIR and Ex.p12 is the inventory report with photos.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor during the course of argument submitted that the prosecution by examining 6 witnesses and also by getting 12 documents marked and by getting four material objects marked, has established 14 beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences alleged against him.
16. At the outset, it is just and necessary to verify the materials placed on record to know that whether the prosecution could comply the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for accused submitted that the prosecution has not complied the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and42( 2 ) and of the NDPS Act. However, as seen from the evidence of PW1 Sri.K. Narayana Gowda, the then PI of CCB, Bangalore, on 1.8.2018 at about 09.00 am., he had received the credible information from the informant that within the jurisdiction of Bharathi Nagar Police Station, in Promenade Road near St. Joseph Women's College from 10.30 to 11.30 am., a Nigerian national named Jerry Aga by violating the Visa conditions is selling narcotic substance to the public. PW1 specifically deposed that, as soon as he received the said information, he noted down the said CCH-33 15 Spl.C.C.75/2021 information in a information book maintained in their office.
This witness in Para No.2 further deposed that he submitted a request letter the ACP/CW11 and sought permission for search and seizure under Ex. P2. At this stage, it is relevant to go through Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, as could be read from Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, when an officer takes down any information in writing under sub section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereof, he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. Therefore, Section 42 provides for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without any warrant or authorization by an officer who is otherwise empowered by the Central Government by general or special order. Though PW1 deposed that he had submitted a requisition to CW11 seeking permission for search and seizure, there is no evidence to show that he had sent a copy of Ex.P1 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In view of that, it can be held that the provisions of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act has not been properly complied with.
16
17. Learned counsel for accused has also submitted that the search and seizure officer did not comply the mandatory statutory provision contemplated under Section 50 of NDPS Act. At this stage, it is relevant to rely on the decision reported in (2013) 2 SCC 502 in the case of Kishan Chand Vs., State of Haryana wherein in paragraph Nos.19 to 21 it is observed as under:-
19. The provisions like Section 42 or 50 of the Act are the provisions which require exact and definite compliance as opposed to the principle of substantial compliance. The Constitution Bench in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) carved out an exception which is not founded on substantial compliance but is based upon delayed compliance duly explained by definite and reliable grounds.
20. While dealing with the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and keeping in mind its mandatory nature, a Bench of this Court held that there is need for exact compliance without any attribute to the element of prejudice, where there is an admitted or apparent non-compliance. The Court in the case of State of CCH-33 17 Spl.C.C.75/2021 Delhi v. Ram Avtar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207], held as under:-
26. The High Court while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh and rejecting the theory of substantial compliance, which had been suggested in Joseph Fernandez, found that the intimation did not satisfy the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The Court reasoned that the expression "duly" used in Section 50 of the Act connotes not "substantial" but "exact and definite compliance". Vide Ext. PW 6/A, the appellant was informed that a gazetted officer or a Magistrate could be arranged for taking his search, if he so required. This intimation could not be treated as communicating to the appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before the said authorities.
As the recovery itself was illegal, the conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
27. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. As already held by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the theory of "substantial compliance" would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and 18 ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial.
21. When there is total and definite non-compliance of such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. It will per se amount to prejudice. These are indefeasible, protective rights vested in a suspect and are incapable of being shadowed on the strength of substantial compliance. In view of the observation made in the aforesaid decision, the safeguard or right provided to the accused cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of his such right. Here the concerned officer means the officer empowered to conduct raid. In the present case, PW1 is the search and seizure officer, who rushed to the alleged place of incident as per the information received by him, Therefore, it is PW1 who had to apprise the right available to the accused as mandated under Section 50 of NDPS Act.
CCH-33 19 Spl.C.C.75/2021 However, as seen from Ex.P8 the body search memo, the body search memo had been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police namely PW2. Though PW1 deposed that he had appraised about the right of the accused to have body searched in the presence of gazetted officer or before the Magistrate, except his oral evidence, no other material to show that he had apprised about the right of accused before the arrival of the ACP.
18. Moreover, as pointed out by learned counsel for accused, as could be seen from Ex. P2, the letter requesting permission for raid addressed to the ACP, before going for search and seizure itself, PW1 had requested PW2 to come to the spot and conduct body search of the accused person. That means as submitted by the learned counsel for accused, before apprising the right of accused to get body searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or before the Magistrate, the PW1 had voluntarily requested to ACP to come to the spot and conduct body search of the accused. 20 The said procedure cannot be considered as the proper compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. It appears that PW1 and PW2 only to show compliance of formalities had issued Ex.P8 body search memo to the accused without apprising him about his right specifically as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, it is the considered view of this court that there is no proper compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act in the present case.
19. The learned counsel for accused has also vehemently argued that though incident allegedly occurred after the case of Mohanlal rendered in Criminal Appeal No.652/2012 dated 28.01.2016, the Investigating Officer has not complied Section 52A of NDPS Act. As seen from Ex.P12, Annexure 1 is produced, which shows the table of the narcotic substance seized by the Investigating Officer. The table mentioned in Ex.P12 is signed by the Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate has issued a certificate CCH-33 21 Spl.C.C.75/2021 under sub section(3) of Section 52A of NDPS Act and except this certificate, there is no mention about drawing of sample of cocaine for sending it to the FSL for scientific analysis. No photographs annexed. Therefore, there is no proper compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In the aforesaid decision in Para No.13 it is observed as under:-
"13. It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52- A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes 22 mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.
The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52- A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure."
Accordingly, in the present case there is no proper compliance of Section 52 of NDPS Act and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.
20. Learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the case of the prosecution shall fail as the prosecution has not complied the other mandatory statutory CCH-33 23 Spl.C.C.75/2021 provision of law i.e., Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Section 57 of NDPS Act reads as under ;
57. Report of arrest and seizure.--
Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.
As could be seen from the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution there is no evidence to show that raid success report is submitted to the superior officer and the non compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act is also a defect found in the investigation and it goes to the root of the case of prosecution.
21. Now, on merits if the records are verified, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as discussed herein above. Though in the charge sheet two independent witnesses are cited, they have not been examined by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution depending only on 24 the basis of the evidence of official witnesses as well as the evidence of the Scientific Officer, namely PW3. PW1 is the raiding officer. He deposed about the information received by him and about the pre-raid and post-raid, the formalities followed by him. PW2 is the ACP who acted as gazetted officer and he deposed about the raid conducted in his presence. That too he deposed that he himself conducted the search of the person of accused and recovered the alleged contraband from him which is not permissible. If the evidence of PW6 is gone through along with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, during the course of his cross examination, PW.6 who was also present at the time of the alleged raid, it has been admitted by him that the PW.1 Inspector did not apprise about the right of the accused to him, that the ACP was called to the spot by the Inspector with his own volition. It is also elicited from him that on the seized articles the PW.1 Inspector has not signed and it is the ACP who signed those articles. According to the procedure, it is the Seizing Officer who has to affix signatures on the seized articles CCH-33 25 Spl.C.C.75/2021 along with the mahazar witnesses. The Assistant Commissioner of Police being the superior officer to PW1, he has limited duty to be done when he was called as a gazetted officer. He being the Superior Officer shall be present during the time of body search of accused for compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, in his presence, the person of the accused shall be searched. He is not supposed to affix signatures on seized properties and he himself cannot issue body search memo to the accused since he cannot act as an investigating officer.
22. It is true that the evidence of police officers cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are the police officers. In the present matter the PW.1 and PW.2 as well as PW.6 are the police officers. However, PW6 who accompanied the raiding officer, who deposed as narrated herein above in contradiction to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. If at all these witnesses participated in raid as deposed by them, they would have deposed inconformity 26 with the evidence of each other. Since, there are contradictions in their evidence it is difficult to accept their evidence. The evidence of those witnesses does not inspire the confidence of the court. On the basis of their evidence alone without the evidence of any independent witnesses, the court cannot accept the case of the prosecution.
23. It is to be noted, that if at all such an incident had occurred as narrated by the prosecution, the PW1 would have secured witnesses from the very same place and the mahazar witnesses would have come forward to give evidence before the Court.
24. Further, as seen from Ex.P1 the fact stated in it is different from the facts stated in Ex.P2 & P5. It indicates that those documents are got up to suit the case set up by the prosecution. In view of that, it is the considered view of this court that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the alleged contraband from the custody of the accused, that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the CCH-33 27 Spl.C.C.75/2021 accused was apprised with his right to have body searched in the presence of the gazetted officer before conducting seizure, that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the investigating officer has complied the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of NDPS Act and the sample was drawn in accordance with law for the purpose of sending it to the forensic scientific laboratory. Since, the Investigating Officer failed to get the sample of the alleged contraband in accordance with the law, even if a report is submitted before the court by the Scientific Officer, it cannot be looked into and the evidence of scientific officer namely PW.3 do not come to the help of the prosecution. When there is no FSL report, then where is the question of leveling charges against the accused under the provisions of NDPS Act. Therefore, by considering all these flaws in the investigation, it is the considered view of this court that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of such doubt shall be extended to the accused. 28
25. There is also a charge against the accused under Section 14 of Foreigners Act. However, absolutely there are no materials to hold that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 14 of Foreigners Act. In view of that, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
26. Point No.3: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
accused Jerry Aga is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act and Sec.14 of Foreigners Act.
M.O.1 & 2 contraband is ordered to be returned to the complainant for producing before the Drug Disposal committee for disposal. M.O.4 key of two wheeler shall be released in favour of the accused after the CCH-33 29 Spl.C.C.75/2021 expiry of appeal period and Mos.3 & 5 mobile phone and cash of Rs.500/- shall be confiscated to the State.
Accused is directed to comply Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
Since the accused is in detention Center the concerned authority is hereby directed to depot the accused from India after the expiry of appeal period, if he is not required in any other legal proceedings.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 6th day of September 2025) (LATHA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri K Narayana Gowda,
P.W.2 : Sri Venkatesh Prasanna
P.W.3 : Dr.Vani N
30
P.W.4 : Sri Veerendrakumar P
P.W.5 : Sri anand Naik C E
P.W.6 : Sri Vinay
(b) Defence :
- NIL -
2. List of documents Exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Station House Diary
Ex.P.2 : Request letter to ACP
Ex.P.3 : Panch notice
Ex.P.4 : Request letter to ACP
Ex.P.5 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.6 : Sample seal
Ex.P.7 : Complaint
Ex.P.8 : Body search notice
Ex.P.9 : FSL report
Ex.P.10 : Specimen seal
Ex.P.11 : FIR
Ex.P.12 : Certificate U/s.52A of NDPS Act
(b) Defence:
-Nil-
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample
M.O.2 : Sample
M.O.3 : Mobile
CCH-33
31 Spl.C.C.75/2021
M.O.4 : Vehicle Key
M.O.5 : Cash
(LATHA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*